dagblog - Comments for "The year of no Mormon president "

Good point. Thanks are due to

artappraiser — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:25:18 +0000

In reply to Helluva cocktail party, Dag.

Good point. Thanks are due to the hosts for the hassle of maintaining a site for longer- term discussion when more every day just give all that up to a Facebook monopoly. And, as has been pointed out ad nauseum in hundreds of ways pro and con, it's usually a different kinda cocktail party when people like bosses, family and coworkers are in attendance.

Like I told ya....keep the

Quinnonymous — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:42:17 +0000

In reply to Helluva cocktail party, Dag.

Like I told ya....keep the damned Juice outta Persia. ;-)

Helluva cocktail party, Dag.

acanuck — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:22:19 +0000

In reply to The year of no Mormon president

Helluva cocktail party, Dag. We've been talking religion and politics for what seems like three straight days, and nobody's thrown a chair yet. A few raised voices, maybe, and a spilled drink or two. But a little club soda and some paper towels and that stain will come right out. What, the carpet's Persian silk? Oh, that's not good.

Well love when you do drop

Bruce Levine — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:43:27 +0000

In reply to There's an insight I read

Well love when you do drop by Qster, even when we disagree. But just so you know, the family fights about anything and everything, and not just Israel. Indeed, my kids think I'm crazy for all kinds of reasons, and not just because of my pontificating about some country 7,000 miles away. We're equal-opportunity squabblers, I can assure you of that.

There's an insight I read

Quinnonymous — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:13:51 +0000

In reply to Well Q, If I were you or

There's an insight I read when I was younger, tried on, and which has grown longer and longer legs over the decades. This:

That the simple act of paying attention to something is actually taking a stance. It is a way of saying, "This is important." We may feel negatively or positively about it, but we are making it IMPORTANT. And that's a big deal.

Which is why I find reporters to be so ridiculous when they claim "objectivity" in how they treat the news, when their simple act of picking a subject out - of paying attention - foregrounds that concern, and lets the rest fade to black.

Now, this isn't saying it means we will treat that thing WELL. We may be harsh as hell to it. It just means we give it our time and attention, and find it important.

Let's apply this to Israel. You and your family may well have an enormous range of opinions about it. Which is great.

But. It makes Israel IMPORTANT. And yes, more important than Nepal. Or Baluchistan.

And the result would almost certainly be that, if you sat on a Foreign Affairs committee, you would want to learn more about, pay more attention to, and act more readily in relation to... Israel. Now, you might want to interfere with it, bust it into 17 little states, fund various programs there, establish a base there, whatever.

But its 8 million people would likely receive more attention than the 29 million Nepalese.

And... MAYBE WE WANT TO DO THAT. As a nation (or nations!) And that's OK. Maybe for geo-political reasons. Or historic ones. Or ethnic ties ones. Or religious ones. Or trade ones.

In fact, if it's me, I'd have Israel firmly in the Top Ten of my foreign policy concerns. And it's ok if I'm asked WHY. And asked how much my views resembled those of my Mother and my early faith, as a psycho Fundy Baptist. Or those of my Jewish Father. Or those of my immensely tolerant and mystical Step-Father.

Otherwise, thank you for your kind invite, and when I'm next in the region, I will absolutely let you all know. That said, life has had its own rhythms and reasons, and I'm not blogging more than once or twice a year these days. Still, always good to drop by and brawl a bit. ;-)

Well Q, If I were you or

Bruce Levine — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:40:45 +0000

In reply to I think I disagree with you

Well Q,

If I were you or anyone on here, and you were considering voting for me on a matter touching foreign affairs, I'd think you'd be nuts not to question me about this stuff, especially Israel. And that's because I've expressed my views once or twice.

But if you sat at my Seder table on Pesach --and that is a genuine and open invitation and it would be a pleasure to have you sample my matzo ball soup because it really is second to none and it's good for what ails you--and you listened to the heated conversation my family and guests have about all things Israel, then I would just restate that the notion that a Jewish guy should be questioned about Israel anymore than the non-Jewish guy down the street becomes something I take extraordinary exception to.

On the other hand, I understand what DF and maybe a few others have written, and that is that I would be silly to rest on some absolutist notion that it's wrong to have curiosity in one's heart about someone professing strong religious beliefs. Because that really would be foolish. On the other other hand, I'm I don't think I would come out the same way about the Joe Foonyatz guy who just happened to have been born Jewish and never mentioned a word about that fact in 40 years of public service.

I just don't like to place presumptions or issue a burden of proof to a candidate for public service solely on the basis of religion. More than that, I think it's wrong.

So, tell me, when are you going to forgive us for all of our transgressions and come back home here officially. That's what Jesus would say.

I think I disagree with you

Quinnonymous — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:24:09 +0000

In reply to Peracles, Relax dude. You

I think I disagree with you on this Bruce, pretty much root and branch.

It's the difference between believing the only way to treat people fairly is to erase all a person's particularities and perspectives, versus taking them out and very squarely and precisely looking at them.

And we don't need to go too deeply into Theories of Justice and analytical approaches to Rationality to find that the latter view has large numbers of adherents. Like me, for instance. A consequence of which is that I Peracles' attackers to be the ones who are, in my view, both irrational and unjust.

To take an example, you, Bruce, have a particular set of views about Jews, and about Israel, I believe. As does my Mum. If you two were running head-to-head, I'd question both of you quite deeply about these views.

And in fact, my Mum more deeply. Why? Well, because she's a screaming Fundamentalist Baptist of the most violently pro-Israel type. She's not a faker of these views as previous Presidents have been - she's the real deal. (Think Maggie Thatcher, but without the pleasantries.) And thus, she would, given a chance, drive the Palestinians into the sea. And then the Iranians, the Saudis, and so on. And when I say "into the sea," I mean "kill them."

So to those of you who think you shouldn't be questioning the ass off of every one of these mouth-breathing Fundamentalist/Evangelical Baptists running for office, vigorously, no holds barred, at their very mention of the terms "Evangelical" and "Baptist" - then you are an absolutely clueless, deeply irrational, individual.

And that's MY faith background, ok?

Now. That said, I believe that if I gave you a Geography and History test, today, which involved picking one of Nepal, Israel and Baluchistan to describe in detail, and if you failed you would lose your house, then I'm feeling fairly safe in guessing you'd pick Israel as an example.

And you know what? Just that, just being deeply immersed in a particular topic, is enough to give a person a particular perspective on it that should - should - then be drawn out by questioning during campaigns. You see, good and bad, I want to know a person's experience, learning, reading, thinking.

Let's say the City of Toronto is going to fund a new arena for the Leafs. And I've been a vicious Leaf fan since I was a child. Am I likely to see things differently than someone newly immigrated to the City, from a warm climate, who has 4 children and no access to a car? Mmmm, probably.

So I'd be asking ME my views on the Leafs. Vigorously.

And if you're a Jew, I'm going to ask you a fair bit about Israel. Amongst your views on 101 other issues. But damn right, I'm going to zoooooom in, during Deep Questioning in Round #2, precisely on those areas you seem very knowledgeable about or to care deeply about - like Israel - as well as those areas that I consider important, but that you don't.

Seriously, Bruce. Baluchistan or Israel? You couldn't give a shit either way? "These nations are as a coin toss in my mind?" And because "you're an American" - as someone up above said - these questions can't be raised?

Well, only if you really deeply desire to be irrational, ignorant and thus, unfair, in your choice of elected officials.

There's a difference between simply waving the bloody rag and stamping Mormon or Jew on someone's head. But to not be able to raise questions? And extra special questions? Like... I don't want to ask a woman candidate about women's issues I feel have been given short shrift? Are we kidding here?

I say, let's bring all the differences out, let's discuss them full bore, let's take all our particularities and have at them... and then, vote.

Romney is out on the campaign

Oxy Mora — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:53:38 +0000

In reply to The year of no Mormon president

Romney is out on the campaign trail talking about his work as a lay minister in the Mormon church. Also, in the attempt to humanize himself, he spoke yesterday about how his father was able to spit out nails. Frank Rich's theory is sinking in---that Romney's reluctance to talk about himself in the context of his Mormon faith is what's making him seem detached.

Peracles, Relax dude. You

Bruce Levine — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:42:04 +0000

In reply to And in case you weren't

Peracles,

Relax dude. You went completely overboard yesterday, and it helped to clarify the issue of consideration of the religious beliefs of candidates. If I could have a five-spot for every time I've gone over the deep end I'd be a rich guy already.

So you done good, now let's just move along.

[Message per instructions from AIPAC Centeral ]

And in case you weren't

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:34:33 +0000

In reply to If you have some amazing

And in case you weren't aware, Congresspeople do identify with religion, gender and ethnicity to get what they want - so I'm still puzzled why it's beyond the pale to understand what exactly these groups want if the groups themselves do - Jewish, black, progressive, women's, Hispanic... -even before they're elected. And it seems the Catholic caucus continues in ascendance even over what I once naïvely thought was plain common sense and beyond debate in public policy, contraception.

That 1/10th of the Senate and 6% of the House meets with the President because they're Jewish kinda means this isn't quite a secret, and the President does seem aware of what will tickle these folks' interest....

The President's Meeting With Jewish Members of the Democratic Caucuses, May 18, 2010

The president met with Jewish members of the Democratic caucuses for approximately an hour and a half this afternoon to discuss a range of issues important to U.S. foreign policy. The conversation included an update on proximity talks and administration efforts to strengthen Israel's security, including the administration's recent decision to provide Israel with an additional $205 million in funding for the Iron Dome missile defense system. They also discussed today's announcement of a consensus P5+1 draft of an Iran sanctions resolution. The president and the members had a wide-ranging and productive exchange about their shared commitment to peace and security in Israel and the Middle East.